O’Grady on Apple vs. Does

Jason O’Grady, who runs PowerPage.org, one of the websites Apple is forcing to disclose sources, has reacted to all of it at ZDNet. “My position on the Asteroid postings is that I didn’t steal the information and I didn’t ask for it. Someone volunteered it to me and it looked credible, so I posted it. It wasn’t marked confidential, trade secret or any such thing but it looked legit to me, so I ran it. When Apple later asked me to remove it, I complied. Apple feels that independent online journalists are not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that a journalist’s confidential communications and sources should be exposed to them or any large corporation that doesn’t like what they publish – at will. I think that this is completely wrong on several levels.”

I don’t think trade secret law stems from any amendment, but I could be wrong. Either way, it doesn’t matter, journalists are protected even if their reporting negatively impacts another party. That’s actually part of the reason they’re protected.

Either way, it doesn’t matter weather or not trade secret law stems from a Constitutional Amendment.

And you’re still wrong. It doesn’t if, how, or how much this reporting negatively impacts Apple, the First Amendment still protects it, in fact, that’s precisely the kind of thing it’s meant to protect.

And the protection is still there weather the source broke an NDA to reveal juicy secrets or faced firing for exposing gross government waste. If Apple wants to get at the leaker, they have to go a different route.

Mike Langberg wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs warning that “The lawsuits pose an imminent threat to Apple’s most precious asset: the company’s reputation as a hip underdog, a cool alternative to bigger and blander competitors such as Microsoft, Dell and Hewlett-Packard.”

Seems like a threat to me. Apple gets a overwhelming amount of slanted press coverage.

But on his web site it says “Got juice? I’ve posted a new contact page with all the digits.” Nice wording, but we all know what you mean. Wink wink nod nod.

Just because someone sends you something that is not marked as confidential does not mean that the information is not confidential.

But he knew this. He still published it. It gets the massive hits that advertising sites like yours desire. Unfortunately it also gets people fired. NY Times or such would not have posted it, because they know it is information gathered in breach of contract and the information though interesting to us tech pundits is not at all good for the public welfare.

He implies that freedom of speech gives him pretence to say anything. But that is not true. His lack of understanding of this is why he is in a lawsuit now.

Apple has every right to bring him to trial for this. He has every right to defend himself. The court will decide.

He implies that freedom of speech gives him pretence to say anything. But that is not true. His lack of understanding of this is why he is in a lawsuit now.

Sure he cannot be libelous or racist (“hatespeech”). I fail to see how he’s either.

NY Times or such would not have posted it, because they know it is information gathered in breach of contract and the information though interesting to us tech pundits is not at all good for the public welfare.

Apple’s welfare is the PUBLIC welfare now ? Also don’t tell me the Times never posts stories based on information their ‘sources’ acquired by less-than-official means. The protection of sources by journalists was put in place for a reason you know.

Edit: I guess “traiterous” could be another form of prohibited speech, but that doesn’t apply either.

Apple’s welfare is the PUBLIC welfare now ? Also don’t tell me the Times never posts stories based on information their ‘sources’ acquired by less-than-official means. The protection of sources by journalists was put in place for a reason you know.

I think you misunderstood what the OP meant. AFAIK whistle blowers are protected when the information they are leaking is in the public interest (i.e. someone reveals that toxic waste is dumped illegally, etc). None of the information released about Apple’s product line has anything to do with public interest or welfare as you have noted.

I think the judge in the case summed it up quite nicely. Public interest and an interested public are quite different things.

I think you misunderstood what the OP meant. AFAIK whistle blowers are protected when the information they are leaking is in the public interest (i.e. someone reveals that toxic waste is dumped illegally, etc). None of the information released about Apple’s product line has anything to do with public interest or welfare as you have noted.

Point taken. And I am in no way defending the people who breached their NDA, they shouldn’t be protected. The middle men here however should be protected (IMHO), I see no reason to violate their free speech rights.

So,lets say some how or another some nude pictures of your wife/girlfriend are taken from your home without your consent. The perpetraitor gives them to another guy, who then puts it on the internet, knowing that they are naked pictures of your wife/girlfriend. Now is he any less guilty because he didn’t explicity “take” the pictures? Would you and your significant other feel more violated because he proceeded to show the entire world those pictures?

Would you feel this violation of privacy somehow does not apply to this “middle-man” because he didn’t steal the pictures in the first place? I assure you there are lots of people on the internet interested in seeing naked pictures.

So how I see it, this guy had “naked” pictures of mac hardware and knowing what it was, he posted it anyway without asking for consent. If you believe this is okay let me know your address so I can get someone to break into your house and give me all your sensitive information so I can put it on the internet. Unless you live in Florida, then all I need is your name and I can just google for it.

The point is this is an invasion of privacy, just because its a corporation does not make it any less so.

The point is this is an invasion of privacy, just because its a corporation does not make it any less so.

It most certainly does. A corporation is not a person of flesh and emotion, morally or legally. Corporations are protected from unjust competition by patent and copyright laws, they don’t have any right to privacy per se.

But hey, you wouldn’t stay in america unless you liked getting constantly raped by the megabuck, so I understand your reasoning.

Sure he cannot be libelous or racist (“hatespeech”). I fail to see how he’s either.

He most definitely was not libelous or racist. He also did not threaten anyone with harm. He just made private information of a software product public on his site and then refused to disclose who sent it to him. The court will decide if there is legal merit to his claim that he does not have to release his sources and they will judge accordingly.

What is so comical about all this is that they have so much in common. Apple does not want its information public (their secret product announcements) and O’Grady (and other rumor sites) do not want their sources revealed. It really isn’t a matter of individual free speech. It is about each company (Apple, O’Grady, TS, etc.) explicitly desiring to keep their information private.

But there is one caveat. O’Grady doesn’t have the right to Apple’s private information. But Apple believes they have the right to O’Grady’s private information because that information will help them figure out who in their company is in violation of their NDA.

It’s all very interesting. I really don’t know what the outcome will be.

Something that does bother me about this is that there are plenty of ways to communicate anonymously these days, why the hell didn’t they do that ? They could even agree on a “codephrase” or something so he could know the source and still have plausible deniability as to its anonymous nature.

This is an area of Free Press and these website leakers are in VIOLATION of that and this is more related Corporate Espionage, because these sorces give competitors advantages they shouldn’t have over Apple.

If I was the judge, I would tell Apple to stop being lazy and do an internal investigation to find out who leaked the info. Apple has a problem with one of its employees, not the journalist. The journalist did not sign an NDA and therefore did not breach any law. The best Apple can do is ask the journalist politely about his source.

Precious info not destined for immediate use was taken from Apple. The disgruntled employee took what wasn’t hers/his to leak out and now someone is making a profit from that stolen info.

Apple is a victim of theft. Now these slimeballs from those 3 sites are profitering from this theft. Did they have a right to that stolen info: no. Did they have a right to profit from that stolen info: no. What are people who steal precious things from others: thieves. What are people who use stolen goods/info for personal gain: thieves.

It’s clear and simple. Don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Apple still has this information. You can’t ‘take’ information away from somebody. Apple would love to see you see it as if it were stealing but it’s not. An Apple employee simply broke a contractual agreement with their employer.